The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, The Ugly Duckling, Three Little Pigs, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Beauty and the Beast, Alladin, The Princess and the Frog, Frozen.
I didn't mean to infer that Disney stole Sherlock, but instead to demonstrate how ridiculously long copyright terms are still encumbering stories 85 years after the death of the author and up to 92 years after their creation.
Alice in Wonderland was published in 1865. In 1923, 58 years later, one of the first cartoons produced by Disney was Alice's Wonderland. In 1924 - 91 years ago - he made another Alice movie. That second movie is still under copyright, due to Disney lobbying, and will continue to be so until 2019.
Disney made his money ripping off Lewis Carroll, but taxpayers have to pay to enforce the rights on the works he ripped off 95 years after the fact.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else making a film, animated or otherwise, of Alice in Wonderland. Disney categorically do not own copyright to the original work. There have been over 30 non-Disney adaptations of Alice in Wonderland since the 1951 Disney version, as well as 2 more works by Disney.
Since Lewis Carroll's original work had gone into the public domain, it is a misnomer to say that Disney "ripped it off". Anyone can take a public domain work and monetise it. That derivative work may be copyrighted, much like the performance of a Beethoven symphony (are the orchestra ripping off Beethoven?) or the performance of a Shakespeare play (again, are the actors, producers and directors ripping off Shakespeare?).
You seem to find the money side distasteful, which is a different argument. The issue here is that the Walt Disney Company, who ultimately own the copyright to the derivative work, maintain their copyright. Yes, copyright laws need re-examining in a world where corporations own copyright, but it's far more nuanced than you are making out.
No it doesn't, such a claim would be laughed out of court. Where did you hear this? Are you not aware that there have been other non-Disney versions of Snow White?
I t is worth noting that only one of those three 2012 works uses the term "snow white" (in the title) and they prefix it with "Grimm's [Snow White]" which automatically counters any claim by Disney that Disney's trademark is being appropriated.
Note that the "registration date" for the RTM [which I'm assuming is the date at which the registration becomes active, please correct if wrong] is 2013 - how the hell did Disney get a RTM on "Snow White" it doesn't indicate origin, it's a traditional story character. The only way it could genuinely be a trademark would be if it were used in a way completely unrelated to the character or story.
Because trademarks are different from copyright, in law and in practice. 'Google' is a trade mark even though it's just a homonym of 'googol,' a word from the dictionary. You can trade mark almost anything and if you can show you have been using the mark in commerce in a meaningful way then you can stop other people from using it in an infringing way - and you have to make an attempt to do so, or face possible future claims of trademark abandonment. Registration of a trade mark is prima facie proof of ownership and also allows you to collect statutory rather than just economic damages.
The only way it could genuinely be a trademark would be if it were used in a way completely unrelated to the character or story.
Who told you that? It's wrong, wrong, wrong. Trade marks and copyright are totally separate beasts and bringing up TM issues in a discussion of copyright only confuses people.
You can't use common words in a field as registered trademarks. They can be used as trademarks by a company. The purpose of a trademark is to indicate the origin of goods and services - thus sane trademark registration requires that a mark being registered meets certain basic requirements. One of those requirements is that a mark not be a common term in the field. A trademark has to be distinct.
Google is distinct in the field of search engines as it's both a neonym (ie neologism, made up word) and a word that is not especially pertinent to the particular field of commerce. That is why it's Google and not Googol, neologism's are better because it's far easier to establish uses that are infringing.
You /can/ use almost anything as a trademark but there are restrictions on what can be a registered trademark.
So back to Disney.
"Snow White" shouldn't be allowed as a trademark as it's a traditional term in the fields of story telling/movies/cartoons/fiction. Just as a fruit sellers can't have [the word mark] Apple as a registered trademark so too it is normal to reject marks that would prevent people from merely describing their goods (as opposed to indicating the origin of those goods [or services]).
Thus to my "wrong, wrong, wrong" statement - Snow White is a perfectly good mark outside the fields of fiction, eg for a hair care product. But allowing the registration of a mark for a Nice class in which that word is widely used descriptively is insane. "Snow White" can only practically indicate the origin of goods/services outside the field of fiction/media.
>Trade marks and copyright are totally separate beasts
Except in these instances they're not. Because trademarks don't expire (as long as you pay renewals and manage to avoid genericisation, etc.) then a common method of protecting copyright works as they pass in to the public domain is to use RTMs to bind as much as possible of the IP away from the public domain; eg getting RTMs on character names. This way it is more risky for firms to sell the now public works and the ability to create franchises and such is made far harder - you can create a new Snow White series and use "Snow White" descriptively but then you attempt to create merchandise and oh look Disney own the names of your central characters.
"Snow White" shouldn't be allowed as a trademark as it's a traditional term in the fields of story telling/movies/cartoons/fiction.
You are of course entitled to that opinion but the fact is that the USPTO decided otherwise. When I say you are 'wrong, wrong wrong' it's because I am talking about how things go in the real world rather than how they should go in the ideal world.
My knowledge of the USC is admittedly weak, I know a bit more about EU/UK trademark laws but they do work largely in the same manner, I am just an interested bystander (but have previously worked in IP).
What I meant by "Snow White" shouldn't be allowed as a trademark" is that it shouldn't be allowed to be registered by the USPTO because it contravenes the requirement in the USC that the mark be distinctive. 15 USC 1127 says this about service marks:
>"The term “service mark” means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof—
>"(1) used by a person, or
>"(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use [...] to identify and distinguish the services of one person, including a unique service, from the services of others and to indicate the source of the services, even if that source is unknown. Titles, character names, and other distinctive features [...]" (USC, eg from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127) //
Note that character names are specifically included _when_ they "identify and distinguish the services of one person, including a unique service, from the services of others". In terms established in case law that means a descriptive mark must have acquired "secondary meaning" by use that establishes it as uniquely identifying the services of the registrant in order for the mark to be distinctive and so qualify for registration.
In the real world the USPTO should adhere to the USC as much as in my imagination and failure to do so is contrary to the rule of law. In my book that makes USPTO "wrong, wrong, wrong" but you're entitled to disagree.
You could also plainly look to 15 USC 1051(b)(3)(D) and see that Disney perjured themselves in applying for the mark as "to the best of the verifier’s knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use such mark in commerce either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive" can not be claimed of the name of a story character that is in common use in other people's products and to refer to other people's products, eg [Grimm's] Snow White.
Could you please give an example? Is Sherlock Holmes a character groundlessly appropriated by Disney?